He said the media’s coverage of the two leading U.S. presidential candidates and their relationships with Russian President Vladimir Putin were examples of how the press tends to be “very superficial” about such matters.
He also said:
Let me give you a slightly different spin: they know Hillary Clinton very well, and they know that her foreign policy will be essentially the same as Obama’s – that she’s weak and indecisive when it comes to major decisions....I think if I were Vladimir Putin, I’d rather deal with a weak American President than a strong American President, even as we look at the campaigns, with what Trump says about Putin. Putin has to understand he’s a strong figure, and that can cause trouble for Putin down the line.If Bolton is correct on this point, and I believe he is, it cuts the final string that the group "Libertarians for Trump" is using for justification for its very existence: That Hillary is somehow the bigger threat to Russia.
Despite tough rhetoric on Russia during the campaign, as Secretary of State she backed down from tough stances on more than one occasion.
Bolton is correct. Trump as president would be a strong figure. This is probably more of a problem for China than Russia at the present but why wouldn't Putin want to face a weak leader?
Indeed, why wouldn't libertarians want a weak horrific leader than a strong horrific leader that is creative and thinks outside the box and seems to have no problem with using authoritarian measures domestically and the military on foreign adventures?
Libertarians for Trump should disband. It will prove a major embarrassment long-term if Trump is elected.